[ga] Re: Proposed modification of ORG registry contract

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Milton and all,

  We [INEGroup] agree with all of you concerns here with this modification
to .ORG/Versign "Deal".  Our legal staff is of the opinion that the ICANN
BoD has been seeking a method contractually, by which they could
gain control of the .ORG TLD so a to limit registrations of non-profit
organizations that may oppose ICANN BoD policies in a legitimate
manner in the DNS.  This "Deal" is one good method of doing so.

Milton Mueller wrote:

> Here is my initial reaction to this:
> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
>
> ICANN is proposing to modify the contract with NSI to allow NSI to continue to operate both the COM registry and the NSI registrar, in exchange for giving up control of ORG.
>
> In and of itself, this is not necessarily a bad idea. There are two serious problems with the proposal, however.
>
> The main problem is that ICANN's staff lawyers are insisting that these changes are not chanages in policy and therefore do not need to be approved by the DNSO.
>
> This is completely wrong. ICANN defines and implements policy through its contracts with registries and registrars. If the DNSO cannot have any role in approving these contracts, then it has no influence over policy.
>
> The proposed new contract contains many policy decisions.
>
> The decision that ORG must be assigned to a non-profit organization is a policy decision. Deciding that registrations in ORG will be limited to "non-profit organizations" is also a policy decision (one that has no basis in RFC 1591 or any other prior decision, and could have a substantial impact on current registrants in that space.
>
> The decision that the current level of market competition justifies allowing integrated ownership of COM registrar and registry is a huge policy decision.
>
> The contract also defines a policy of "presumptive renewal" for Verisign's control of COM.
>
> The second problem with the proposal is that it applies the template contract that ICANN plans to use  on all the new registries. That contract is bloody awful. It turns ICANN into a global regulator that gives it central control of a registry's price, business policies, SLD allocation policies, etc. It is not an exaggeration to say that it represents the end of DNS as a distributed system.
>
> ICANN is proposing to charge the new registries, including the new ORG registry, massively increased fees that will go up automatically by 15% each year.
>
> The fact that these contracts are used as a template that will most likely be applied to all future registries also has long term policy implications.
>
> As your Names Council representative, I had made it clear that I believe that the proposal must be submitted to the Names Council for approval at its April 10 teleconference meeting.
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html